cht_graetz_submit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses async behavior, the ElmerSolver dependency and its graceful {ok:false, reason, install} failure mode, the two validation gates, the writer's Re<400/development-length/cell-Péclet policing, and the exact returned dict fields. It stops short of documenting rate limits or job-concurrency behavior, but this is rich disclosure for an async submit tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is information-dense and front-loads the core purpose, but it is sprawling and overloaded with domain jargon, nested parenthetical equations, and asides. Some sentences (the gate explanation, the return-field enumeration) earn their place, but the whole is longer than needed for an agent to act.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage across 13 params, the description does explain the return dict fields well, which is valuable. However, it leaves the majority of input parameters' meanings and units undocumented, and there is no sibling-parameter disambiguation, so the definition is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 13 parameters, so the description must compensate—but it only mentions `case_dir` (as an alternative input) and geometric/flow concepts implicitly (gap, Re, Péclet) without mapping them to parameters like nx, ny, gap_m, velocity_m_s, mu_fluid. Most parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, a clear gap for a 13-param tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: a flow-coupled Graetz channel simulation via Elmer, explicitly positioned as the 'TRUE Nusselt validation that upgrades cht_channel_submit's plug flow.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling cht_channel_submit by naming the coupling upgrade, though the phrasing is dense and requires domain familiarity to parse.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use it (when you need the real laminar profile and Nu validation, versus cht_channel_submit's plug flow) and gives a when-not implicitly via the ElmerSolver dependency. The gate on Nu_T=7.5407 and the slug comparison provide strong context, but it doesn't spell out the alternative path when ElmerSolver is absent beyond mentioning the degradation dict.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.